Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral value: it discloses the exact return shape (last 20 cycles, swept strategies, gate reasons) and that any key role may call it, which the annotations do not say. Auth needs are only lightly covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, and the parenthetical rejection-reason list is dense but earns its place by pre-answering the diagnostic question. Slightly heavy on enumeration but no wasted sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining the return payload (cycles, strategies, gate reasons) and the auth scope. Missing only edge details like result size limits or pagination, so it is close to complete for a read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (api_key documented, mandate_id bare). The description implies mandate_id selection and points to 'GET /api/v1/mandates/{id}' for the same behavior, but adds no format or constraint detail for the undocumented parameter, so it only marginally compensates for the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('One mandate') and even enumerates the returned contents: its last 20 cycles, strategies swept, and the gate's rejection reasons. An agent can distinguish it from list_mandates (single vs. multiple) without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing, but the embedded framing 'so why did nothing happen? has an answer' implies a diagnostic use case, and 'Any key role' hints at the permission context. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.